Tort — SQE1 practice questions
Negligence (duty, breach, causation, remoteness), psychiatric harm and economic loss, occupiers' liability, product liability, vicarious liability, nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, defences and remedies.
Practise 25 Tort questions free
3 free questions with answers
A temporary stand at a football ground collapsed during a match because of the negligence of the contractor, Arena Build Ltd, which erected it. Gareth watched the collapse live on television at home, knowing that his brother had a ticket for that stand. His brother was seriously injured. Gareth suffered a recognised psychiatric illness as a result of what he saw and his fear for his brother. He has no particularly close relationship with his brother beyond the ordinary ties of siblings.
Which of the following best describes whether Gareth can recover damages from Arena Build for his psychiatric illness?
- AYes, because psychiatric illness to a relative of an injured person was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the collapse.
- BNo, because as a secondary victim he lacks the required proximity to the event, having perceived it only through a television broadcast, and a close tie of love and affection with a brother is not presumed.
- CYes, because a close tie of love and affection is presumed between siblings, and he witnessed the event as it happened.
- DNo, because damages for psychiatric illness are recoverable only where the claimant also suffers physical injury.
- EYes, because he is a primary victim, having feared for the safety of his brother.
Show answer and reasoning
Rule: A secondary victim of psychiatric harm must show a close tie of love and affection, proximity in time and space to the event or its immediate aftermath, and perception by his own unaided senses.
- A Foreseeability alone is insufficient for secondary victims; the Alcock control mechanisms must also be met. (wrong rule)
- C A close tie is presumed for parents, children and spouses or engaged couples, not siblings, and live television viewing is not perception with one's own senses. (wrong rule)
- D Pure psychiatric injury is recoverable without physical injury where the relevant requirements are met. (wrong rule)
- E A primary victim is one within the range of foreseeable physical injury; fear for another person makes Gareth a secondary victim. (wrong rule)
Source: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310; Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1
Leon was driving carefully when his car was struck at moderate speed by a van driven negligently by Shona. Leon was not physically injured, but the collision was violent enough that he could easily have been hurt. Within weeks he developed a recognised psychiatric illness triggered by the crash. Shona's insurers argue that a person of ordinary fortitude would not have suffered psychiatric harm from such a collision.
Which of the following best describes Shona's liability for Leon's psychiatric illness?
- AShe is not liable, because Leon suffered no physical injury.
- BShe is not liable, because psychiatric injury to a person of ordinary fortitude was not reasonably foreseeable.
- CShe is liable only if Leon satisfies the requirements for secondary victims.
- DShe is liable, because Leon is a primary victim within the range of foreseeable physical injury, and it is enough that some personal injury was foreseeable.
- EShe is liable only for the portion of the illness that a person of ordinary fortitude would have suffered.
Show answer and reasoning
Rule: A primary victim within the range of foreseeable physical injury may recover for psychiatric injury even where no physical injury occurs and psychiatric harm itself was not foreseeable.
- A Physical injury is not a precondition for a primary victim's psychiatric injury claim. (wrong rule)
- B The ordinary fortitude test applies to secondary victims; for primary victims it is enough that personal injury of some kind was foreseeable. (wrong rule)
- C Leon was a participant within the zone of physical danger, so the secondary victim controls do not apply. (right rule, wrong facts)
- E The defendant takes the primary victim as found and is liable for the full extent of the recognised illness. (wrong rule)
Source: Page v Smith [1996] AC 155
Two police officers attempted to arrest a suspected drug dealer on a busy town centre pavement. They could see that Edna, an elderly pedestrian, was standing immediately next to the suspect. The suspect resisted, and in the struggle he and the officers fell on top of Edna, injuring her. Edna sues the chief constable, alleging that the officers carried out the arrest negligently. The chief constable argues that the police owe no duty of care when performing their operational functions.
Which of the following best describes whether a duty of care was owed to Edna?
- AA duty was owed, because the officers' positive act carried a reasonably foreseeable risk of physical injury to her, and police are subject to the ordinary principles of negligence.
- BNo duty was owed, because the police have immunity from negligence claims arising out of the investigation and suppression of crime.
- CA duty was owed only if the Caparo three-stage test is satisfied, and public policy considerations make it unfair to impose one on the police.
- DNo duty was owed, because there is generally no duty to protect a person from harm caused by a third party.
- EA duty was owed only if the officers had assumed responsibility for her safety.
Show answer and reasoning
Rule: The police, like anyone else, owe a duty of care to avoid causing reasonably foreseeable physical injury through their positive acts.
- B There is no general police immunity; Hill concerned a failure to protect from harm caused by a third party. (wrong rule)
- C The Caparo three-stage test is not to be applied in an established category such as physical injury caused by a positive act. (wrong rule)
- D This was a case of harm caused by the officers' positive act, not a pure omission to protect. (right rule, wrong facts)
- E Assumption of responsibility is relevant to omissions and economic loss, not to physical injury caused by a positive act. (right rule, wrong facts)
Source: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4; Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53
Subtopics
| Breach of duty | 3 questions |
| Causation and remoteness | 4 questions |
| Defences | 3 questions |
| Duty of care (including psychiatric harm and economic loss) | 4 questions |
| Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher | 2 questions |
| Occupiers' liability | 4 questions |
| Product liability | 2 questions |
| Vicarious liability | 3 questions |